Part 2: God'S Existence . . . . . . . . . .
ESSAYS IN HONOR OF
EDITED BY
Norman L. Geisler
Francis J. Beckwith, William Lane Craig and J. P Moreland
FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Josh McDowell
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Francis f Beckwith
PART 1: FAITH, REASON AND THE NECESSITY OF APOLOGETICS . . 19
Introduction by William Lane Craig
CHAPTER 1: KNOWING CHRISTIANITY Is TRUE:
The Relationship Between Faith and Reason . . . . . . . . . 23
Thomas A. Howe and Richard G. Howe
CHAPTER 2: DEFENDING THE DEFENSE OF THE FAITH . . . . . . . 37
Craig J. Hazen
CHAPTER 3: TACTICS:
Applying Apologetics to Everyday Life . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Gregory P. Koukl
PART 2: GOD'S EXISTENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Introduction by Francis f Beckwith
CHAPTER 4: THE KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT . . . . . . . 61
R. Douglas Geivett
CHAPTER 5: AN INFORMATION-THEORETIC DESIGN
ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
William A. Dembski
CHAPTER 6: A THOMISTIC COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT . . . . . . 95
W David Beck
CHAPTER 7: A MORAL ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Paul Copan
CHAPTER 8: THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
William Lane Craig
PART 3: CHRIST AND MIRACLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Introduction by William Lane Craig
CHAPTER 9: THE CHRISTOLOGY OF JESUS REVISITED . . . . . . . 145
Ben Witherington III
CHAPTER 10: MIRACLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Wi n/n ed Corduan
CHAPTER 11: THE CASE FOR CHRIST'S RESURRECTION . . . . . . . 180
Gary R. Habermas
PART 4: PHILOSOPHICAL AND CULTURAL CHALLENGES TO CHRISTIAN FAITH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Introduction byJ. P. Moreland
CHAPTER 12: THE PROBLEM OF EVIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Ronald H. Nash
CHAPTER 13: PHYSICALISM, NATURALISM
AND THE NATURE OF HUMAN PERSONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
J. P. Moreland
CHAPTER 14: FACING THE CHALLENGE OF POSTMODERNISM . . . . 238
Douglas Groothuis
CHAPTER 15: LEGISLATING MORALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
Michael Bauman
CHAI'TER 16: DARWIN, DESIGN AND THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS . . . . 266
Francis,J. Beckwith
PART 5: RELIGIOUS CHALLENGES TO CHRISTIAN FAITH . . . . . . . 287
Introduction by Francis J. Beckwith
CHAPTER 17: RELIGIOUS PLURALISM
AND CHRISTIAN EXCLUSIVISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
David K. Clark
CHAPTER 18: EASTERN THOUGHT:
The Chimera of Pantheism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
Ravi Zacharias
CHAPTER 19: MORMONISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324
Carl Mosser and Paul Owen
CHAPTER 20: ISLAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350
Abdul Saleeb
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372
J. P. Moreland
ABOUT NORMAN L. GEISLER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376
ABORT THE. CONTRIBUTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381
INDEX OF NAMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385
INDEX OF SUBJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389
SCRIPTURE INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395
"APOLOGETICS IS SIMPLY TO DEFEND THE FAITH, AND THEREBY DESTROY ARGUments and every proud obstacle against the knowledge of God (2 Cor 10:5). It is opening the door, clearing the rubble, and getting rid of the hurdles so that people can come to Christ."
This is how Dr. Norman L. Geisler described the main purpose of apologetics. And after fifty-three years of faithful ministry, there is no one who could speak with more authority on the subject. The apostle Paul wrote, "Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one" (Col 4:6 NKJV). Norm says apologetics, then, is just an attempt to get answers to everybody's questions in order to tear down the obstacles keeping them from Christ.
Norm Geisler was raised in an antireligious home but came to Christ at the age of seventeen. The following day, he went door to door, sharing his newfound faith with those who had yet to hear about Christ. Evangelism was a passion from the beginning of his Christian life. But it didn't take long before he realized that in order to be more effective in sharing the gospel, he would need to be better equipped with knowledge of the Scripture and better prepared to answer difficult questions.
"One Friday evening," Norm remembers of his early days as a Christian, "we were witnessing at the city rescue mission in Detroit and a drunk staggered up to me. `I'm a graduate of Moody Insti-bible-tute,' the man slurred. Then he took the Bible out of my hand and said, `You're not supposed to be doing this.' He turned to the Gospels and pointed out a verse where Jesus said to go and tell no man. `Get out of here,' the inebriated man said with confidence. Jesus doesn't want you to be doing this.'
"This really threw me," Norm remembered. "I didn't have the foggiest idea what the verse meant. But I decided then after being twisted up by Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons and now this drunk, I had better get some answers or else stop witnessing. I'm convinced that most Christians stop witnessing because they don't want to take the time to get answers to all of these people. Instead, I've dedicated my life to getting answers."
Norman Geisler has been at the forefront of the study and teaching of Christian apologetics for decades. His conviction and passion for truth over the years have made a tremendous impact on the body of Christ. His work has provided countless skeptics with solid evidence for the truth of the gospel. And the resources he has faithfully labored over have equipped many believers with confidence to stand firm in the faith and share the truth with others.
Looking at today's cultural climate, we see that the need for apologetics is greater than ever. When Norm started out in ministry more than fifty years ago, most people in America believed that God existed. They believed there were miracles and that Christianity is the true religion; they just hadn't made a commitment to Christ. "Today," Norm said, "with cultural trends leaning toward naturalism, relativism and pluralism, along with all their subcategories, people no longer believe in God, miracles, truth or any of the prerequisites that help make sense out of the gospel."
"Nietzsche said that God is dead," Norm continued. "So for the last century, we've been living under the shadow of the death of God in the culture. And when God dies, all truth dies. If you don't have an absolute moral lawgiver, you can't have any moral laws. When God dies, all truth dies and all meaning dies. So in this culture, the church is faced with reestablishing that there is absolute truth, absolute meaning, absolute morals, and that the opposite of true is false. We have to do more apologetics today than ever before."
This book you hold in your hand is a powerful tool for young people who want to be better prepared to "make a defense to everyone who asks [them] to give an account for the hope that is in [them]" (1 Pet 3:15 NASB). The essays contained herein come from some of the greatest Christian minds of our time, many of whom have been trained and influenced by Dr. Norman L. Geisler. It is only appropriate, then, that the book is compiled in Dr. Geisler's honor.
Personally, Norm Geisler has had a major impact on my life and ministry. In the many years I have been able to call him my friend, Norm has consistently shown me the value of pursuing truth and apologetics. He has shown me the value of biblically based and Christ-centered ministry. And through it all, I have been inspired and challenged by his commitment to excellence.
I have known few people with such a passion for the truth of God's Word and commitment to sharing the claims of Christ with others as Norm Geisler. "It's a life or death issue," he recently said. "In fact, it's an eternal life or eternal death issue, to put it in blunt language.... And if we can't get passionate about that, then we're not going to get passionate about anything!"
Thank you, Norm, for all you have done and continue to do for the cause of Christ. Your faithful service to the Lord will influence generations to come with the knowledge of the one true God. May this book help continue the work to which you have devoted your life, until every tribe and tongue will truly know the Answer.
Norm-to you we are all indebted.
THE APOSTLE PETER INSTRUCTED HIS FELLOW CHRISTIANS TO "BE READY ALways to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear" (1 Pet 3:15 KJv). This command is just as relevant today as it was during the days of the first-century church. Some of the questions asked of today's church are similar to ones raised during Peter's time (e.g., How do you know Jesus rose from the dead?) while others are quite different (e.g., Has Darwinism refuted the belief that God may have designed the universe?). The intent of this volume is to offer to the church a collection of essays that addresses some of the questions raised by those outside the church and to provide the ordinary Christian a resource so that he or she may be able to fulfill Peter's command. Responding to such challenges and offering reasons for one's faith is called apologetics. This term derives from the Greek word apologia, which is a legal term referring to one's defense in court.
This volume is a festschrift to honor the career of Norman L. Geisler, a philosopher and theologian who has been a teacher, friend and colleague to and/or important influence on all the contributors of this volume. Dr. Geisler's career has been dedicated to offering to the world and equipping the church with a defense "of the hope that is in you" and doing so by addressing, in his books, articles, lectures and courses, an array of questions in such diverse fields as theology, philosophy, biblical studies, jurisprudence and religion. This volume attempts, in a modest way, to touch on issues in each of these areas in order to present a de fense of the Christian faith as a worldview.
What do we mean when we say that Christianity is a worldview? What we mean is that the Christian faith is a philosophical tapestry of interdependent ideas, principles and metaphysical claims that are derived from the Hebrew-Christian Scriptures as well as the creeds, theologies, communities, ethical norms and institutions that have flourished under the authority of these writings. These beliefs are not mere utterances of private religious devotion but are propositions whose proponents claim accurately instruct us on the nature of the universe, human persons, our relationship with God, human communities and the moral life. The following is a summary of some of these beliefs.
First, there exists an eternally self-existing moral agent named God, who created the universe ex nihilo. The universe is completely and absolutely contingent upon God for its beginning as well as its continued existence. He is, among other things, personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, perfectly good, necessary and infinitely wise. God is not only the Creator of the visible and physical universe but also the source of the invisible and nonphysical one. He is the creator of human souls and the ontological source of the moral law, logic and mathematics.
Second, God created human beings in his image. A human being is not merely a collection of physical parts but has an underlying unity or soul.' A human being's life is sacred from the moment that human being comes into existence; the value of a human being is not something acquired when he or she reaches a certain level of physical complexity, as many secular thinkers maintain. Because human beings are moral agents, they have the capacity to make decisions and judgments within the larger framework of family and community. Thus, for the Christian worldview, marriage, government and church are not merely social constructions that can be shaped in any way consistent with some utopian vision of justice but rather are natural institutions in which and by which human beings ought to learn what is good, true and beautiful. However differently expressed throughout human history and/or better under stood as the result of moral reflection, they are part of the furniture of the universe, and their continued existence is essential to maintaining the moral ecology of human society. Thus the end of the community should he to produce good citizens and therefore provide a privileged position for these natural institutions.
Third, God reveals himself in special revelation (2 Tim 3:14-17), the Bible, as well as general revelation. Concerning the former, if the Bible is truly God's Word, then it must be without error, for God is perfect (Mk 10:18; Heb 6:18), and it follows logically that his Word must he as well. The Bible provides us with an account of humanity's genesis and fall; a history of God's chosen people; the institution of the law of Moses and its inadequacy to redeem; prophecy; prayer; wisdom and poetry; the good news and story of the first coming of the Messiah; and the establishing of his church on earth.
The latter is the cornerstone of Chrisitan faith. According to the Bible, human beings have violated the moral law of God and need to be made right with him. That is, human beings are in need of salvation but are powerless to achieve this on their own. This is why God became a human being in Jesus of Nazareth: so that he may pay the sacrifice necessary to atone for our sins-his death on the cross. Christians believe that Jesus rose bodily from the grave three days after his death and forty days later ascended into heaven. Shortly after that Jesus' apostles and disciples established his church, a body of believers that continues to grow to this clay. This church is diverse in its membership, including men and women and people from every race, nationality and region of the globe. Christianity attracts such a wide range of people because it offers to the world good news that touches the human heart in a way that is not contingent on cultural idiosyneracies or racial or nationalistic affiliations: God loves us so much that he became a human being and suffered and died so that he may forgive us our sins and by his grace offer us the free gift of eternal salvation.
According to Scripture, God has not left himself without a witness among the unbelievers (Acts 14:17). This is called general revelation, since it is something that all people have the capacity to access through observation, reason and reflection apart from the Bible. J. Budziszewski outlines the five forms in which general revelation is presented in Scripture:
Because the editors of this volume believe that general revelation is a legitimate means by which human beings may acquire knowledge of theological truths, we have asked the contributors of this volume to provide arguments that may be understood and appreciated by those who do not share our Christian faith. Consequently, we do not share the conviction of some Christians that theological knowledge is impossible apart from special revelation.
It is fashionable today to speak of the theological posture of Western civilization, and American intellectual culture in particular, as post-Christian. Our most important, influential and culture-shaping institutions and professions-law, medicine, education, science, media and the arts-no longer accept the presuppositions of the biblical worldview as part of their philosophical frameworks. Thus, for example, it is not unusual-in fact, it is quite common-to hear academic luminaries from different disciplines in assorted venues defend points of view that presuppose that theological claims, and Christian ones in particular, are not claims of knowledge but rather religious opinions no different in nature than matters of taste. The ease by which these points of view are presented, and the absence of a call to justify them by the same standards of philosophical rigor that are required of their opposition, is testimony to how po tently certain views antithetical to the Christian worldview have shaped the ideas, opinions and policies of those who occupy the seats of cultural influence in our society.
Although there are numerous technical works that respond to these challenges, there are few if any that are offered to the ordinary Christian and the wider public as an accessible volume that can be understood by the informed churchgoer and used at Christian colleges, universities, parachurch ministries and Sunday schools throughout North America. To Everyone an Answer is an attempt to address this neglect. Its contributors include many well-known Christian apologists, some of whom have made important strides in their professional work in defending differing aspects of the Christian worldview. Virtually all the contributors have worked within the church, especially in parachurch organizations and local congregations. Because of this experience, they are particularly gifted in teaching laypeople and students on how to defend the Christian worldview in the public square. In fact, some of the contributors work exclusively in this area. Others have a foot in each realm. Nearly all of the contributors have a regular academic appointment at a college, university or seminary at which they teach on a regular basis an apologetics course or one in which there is an apologetics component.
This book is divided into five parts, each of which has a brief introduction written by one of the editors. Each essay includes a brief section of suggested works for further reading. Part one concerns the relationship between faith and reason, and the importance of apologetics to Christian witness. Arguments for God's existence are the focus of part two, in which contemporary versions of five classical arguments are presented. The central claims of the Christian faith are dealt with in part three. Here the contributors cover the possibility of miracles and the claims of Christ. Part four concerns philosophical and cultural challenges to the Christian worldview. A broad range of issues, including the problem of evil and postmodernism, is covered in this section. In part five the contributors respond to religious challenges to the Christian worldview, including Islam and the problem of Christian exclusivism. J. P. Moreland summarizes the book's case in a concluding essay, which is followed by a biographical timeline of the career of Dr. Geisler as well as a bibliography of his published works.
If not for the influence, encouragement, mentorship and personal virtue of Dr. Geisler, many of the contributors of this volume would have taken a much different and less fulfilling path in their professional lives. For this reason, we offer to our friend, colleague and teacher this volume in his honor. Well done, good and faithful servant.
APOLOGETICS IS THAT BRANCH OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY THAT SEEKS TO PROvide rational warrant for Christianity's truth claims. It contains offensive and defensive elements, on the one hand presenting positive arguments for Christian truth claims and on the other refuting objections brought against Christianity's truth claims.
Is apologetics necessary? That depends. Necessary for whom? And for what? The question is not as simple as it first appears.
Usually people who ask this question have something like the following in mind: "Is apologetics necessary for rational belief in Christianity on the part of a normal adult?" Theological rationalists, or evidentialists, as they are often called today, maintain that in the absence of positive evidence for Christian truth claims faith is irrational for a normally functioning adult. Such a position, however, is difficult to square with Scripture, which seems to teach that faith in Christ can be immediately grounded by the inner witness of the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:14-16; 1 Jn 2:27; 5:6-10), so that argument and evidence become unnecessary.
It might be thought that in the case of a person who believes Christian truth claims immediately through the witness of the Holy Spirit, one must have at least the defensive apologetic resources to defeat the various objections with which one is confronted, as happens so frequently in Western culture. But even that more modest claim is hasty, for if the witness of the Holy Spirit in a person's life is sufficiently powerful (as it should be), then it will overwhelm the objections brought against that person's Christian beliefs, thus obviating the need even for defensive apologetics. Since beliefs grounded in the objective, veridical witness of the Spirit are part of the deliverances of reason, believers are rational in their faith even if they are bereft of apologetic arguments, as is the case with most Christians today and throughout the history of the church.
Is then apologetics an utterly trivial pursuit, of no value or relevance to Christian faith, as fideists claim? Such a conclusion would again be hasty. For apologetic arguments may be sufficient for rational faith, even if they are not necessary. There may be persuasive, cogent arguments for Christian faith, even if such arguments are not indispensable for rational belief. The Holy Spirit can use such arguments and evidence as a means of drawing people to himself. Sometimes apologetic arguments will give the honest seeker permission, so to speak, to believe what the Holy Spirit immediately delivers to him, so that they serve as a sort of catalyst to faith, even if they do not become the basis of faith. Moreover, apologetic arguments can confirm the witness of the Holy Spirit, providing a valuable backup in times of spiritual dryness when the believer is not as sensitively attuned to the Spirit or is struggling with doubt.
But suppose we reframe the question. For even if apologetics is not necessary for rational faith, it could still be necessary with respect to other ends. For example, apologetics may well be necessary for the gospel to be effectively heard in Western society today. In general Western culture is deeply post-Christian. It is the product of the Enlightenment, which introduced into European culture the leaven of secularism that has by now permeated the whole of Western society. The hallmark of the Enlightenment was free thought, that is, the pursuit of knowledge by means of unfettered human reason alone. While it is by no means inevitable that such a pursuit must lead to non-Christian conclusions and while most of the original Enlightenment thinkers were themselves theists, it has been the overwhelming impact of the Enlightenment mentality that Western intellectuals do not consider theological knowledge to be possible. Theology is not a source of genuine knowledge and therefore is not a science. Rea son and religion are thus at odds with each other. The deliverances of the physical sciences are alone taken as authoritative guides to our understanding of the world, and the confident assumption is that the picture of the world that emerges from the genuine sciences is a thoroughly naturalistic picture. The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or at best agnostic.
There have been countercurrents to Enlightenment rationalism in Western thought one thinks of Romanticism, for example-but these have been no more sympathetic to Christianity than the Enlightenment project. Indeed, they have sometimes served to offer a mystical, pantheistic nature religion as an alternative to traditional theism, in order that one's religious yearnings, which Enlightenment rationalism tended to treat dismissively, might not go unfulfilled.
On the current scene, self-proclaimed postmodernism is such a movement. The Enlightenment is associated with the modern age, dominated by science and technology, and hence is sometimes called modernity. Postmodernism rejects the all-sufficiency of human reason championed by free thought. This might seem at first blush a welcome development for Christian believers, weary of centuries of attacks by Enlightenment rationalists. But in this case the cure is worse than the disease. For postmodernists deny that there are universal standards of logic, rationality and truth. This claim is incompatible with the Christian idea of God, who, as the Creator and Sustainer of all things, is an objectively existing reality and who, as an omniscient being, has a privileged perspective on the world, grasping the world as it is in the unity of his intellect. There is thus a unity and objectivity to truth that is incompatible with postmodernism. Postmodernism is therefore no more friendly to Christian truth claims than is Enlightenment rationalism. Christianity is reduced to but one voice in a cacophony of competing claims, none of which is objectively true.
In any case, Enlightenment rationalism is so deeply imbedded in Western intellectual life that these antirationalistic currents like Romanticism and postmodernism are doomed, it seems, to be mere passing fashions. After all, no one adopts a postmodernist view of literary texts when reading the labels on a medicine bottle or a box of rat poison! Clearly we ignore the objective meaning of such texts only at peril to our lives. In the end, people turn out to be subjectivists only about ethics and religion, not about matters provable by science. But this is not postmodernism; this is nothing else than classic Enlightenment naturalismit is the old modernism in a fashionable new guise.
Why are these considerations of culture important? Simply because the gospel is never heard in isolation. It is always heard against the background of the cultural milieu in which one lives. A person reared in a cultural milieu in which Christianity is still seen as an intellectually viable option will display an openness to the gospel that a person who is secularized will not. For the secular person you may as well tell him to believe in fairies or leprechauns as in Jesus Christ! What awaits us in North America is already evident in Europe. Although the overwhelming majority of Europeans retain a nominal affiliation with Christianity, only about 10 percent are practicing believers. The most significant trend in European religious affiliation is the growth of those classed as nonreligious from effectively 0 percent of the population in 1900 to more than 22 percent today. Evangelical Christians, for example, appear almost as weird to persons on the streets of Bonn, Stockholm or Paris as do the devotees of Krishna.
It is for that reason that Christians who depreciate the value of apologetics because "no one comes to Christ through arguments" are so shortsighted. For the value of apologetics extends far beyond one's immediate evangelistic contact. It is the broader task of Christian apologetics to help create and sustain a cultural milieu in which the gospel can be heard as an intellectually viable option for thinking men and women. It is not implausible that robust apologetics is a necessary ingredient in fostering a milieu in which evangelization can be most effectively pursued in contemporary Western society and those societies increasingly influenced by it.
In this opening section of our book, we shall take a closer look at the various roles apologetics has to play-in rational faith, in knowledge of Christianity's truth, in discipleship-as well as provide some useful advice on its practical application.
IN THE POPULAR CLASSIC CHRISTMAS MOVIE MIRACLE ON THIRTY-FOURTH Street, little Suzie Walker, played by Natalie Wood, is perplexed about how some of those around her are reacting to the enigmatic Santa Claus figure who has recently come into their lives. Her mother, Doris, played by Maureen O'Hara, tries to explain to her the need to have faith in Kris Kringle. Frustrated, little Suzie exclaims, "But that doesn't make any sense, Mommy," to which her mother responds, "Faith is believing in something when common sense tells you not to."
Unfortunately, too many people think this is exactly what faith is: accepting something against the evidence. But is it really better to believe something despite what our common sense tells us? In our culture today and throughout church history there have been several ways of understanding the nature of faith and its relationship to reason. What we want to do in this essay is to look at those various approaches to the issue of faith and reason and defend a view that we believe is biblical and does justice to who we are as God's creatures.
Before we can jump into the subject of the relationship between faith and reason, it is necessary that we define a few terms. Notice the essay title: "Knowing Christianity Is True: The Relationship Between Faith and Reason." This title suggests a number of notions that need to be examined: truth, knowing, faith and reason. What do we mean by the use of such terms?
WHAT Is TRUTH?
As Christians, what are we claiming when we say our faith is true? This may seem like an unnecessary question if we ask it about most things. If someone said, "It is raining," and someone else said, "That's true," most of us would know exactly what is being said about the rain. But for some reason, when it comes to subjects like religion, the meaning of terms like "truth" becomes confused.
If unbelievers do not understand what we are saying when we say Christianity is true, this confusion can hamper our ability to effectively communicate the claims of Christ. What they need to understand is that when we as Christians maintain that Christianity is true, we are not merely claiming that it fulfills a certain function in our lives. Our contention is that religion is more than something to give us peace of mind, a purpose for life, and happiness. It should certainly do this, but there is something more. We believe that true religion must be grounded in reality, that it must make true claims about reality-who we are as human beings, who God is, and how we relate to God. The religion that cannot truthfully answer these questions is false, not because it fails to give one peace of mind, but because it makes false claims about the way things are.
WHAT Is KNOWING?
There are two familiar lines from two famous Christian songs that may help illustrate two different ways that our culture understands how to know something: `Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so," and "You ask me how I know he lives, he lives within my heart." Sometimes these two types of knowing are referred to as objective (or public, external, factual) and subjective (or private, internal, personal), respectively. As far as they go, there is nothing wrong with thinking of things being known in these ways. After all, surely there are some things that are publicly known, such as the distance the earth is from the sun, or who is the current president of the United States. Just as surely there are some things that are known privately, such as whether I have a headache or whether I am comfortable.
These examples are perhaps not controversial. What is controversial is when some people insist that certain broad issues are necessarily relegated to one realm of knowing or the other. For example, a popular notion is that science deals with the objective, public, external and factual and that religion deals with the subjective, private, internal and personal. Now, while it may be the case that there could be certain aspects of religion that are subjective, private, internal and personal, our contention is that there are important aspects of Christianity that are objective, public, external and factual. Christianity is a worldview that makes claims about reality. These claims are either true or false. If they are true, then there is evidence that can be given to support them. We discovered in the section on "What Is Truth?" that for Christianity to be true means that the claims of Christianity correspond to reality. Likewise, to know that Christianity is true must mean more than knowing it in some subjective, private, internal and personal way. It means that we can know that it is true in an objective, public, external and factual way.
WHAT Is REASON?
To understand what we mean when we talk about reason, let us consider reason in two ways, in terms of the acts of reason and the objects of reason.
Acts of reason. The expression "acts of reason" indicates all those subjective and personal acts of our mind by which we discover, understand or seek to demonstrate truth. The classical designations of these acts of reason are simple apprehension, judgment and reasoning. Although we are considering these as separate acts, we may never experience them as distinct acts of the mind. They normally occur almost simultaneously and automatically. We must not confuse the analysis of reason with the experience of reason.
Simple apprehension is the act of reason whereby the mind lays hold of a thing. This laying hold makes the thing present in and to our mind. However, in simple apprehension, the mind is not engaged in affirming or denying. We simply lay hold of what a thing is. Apprehension may be extremely vague and general. We may lay hold only of the fact that something is a substance. Thorough knowledge of what something is will involve study and experience, and we may never fully comprehend any given thing we apprehend. As the first act of reason, simple apprehension is a simple laying hold of or grasping what something is.
Judgment, the second act of reason, is the act whereby we affirm or deny that the thing apprehended is or was or will be. This may be a simple affirmation or negation, or it may be according to some mode of necessity or possibility. Also, the act of judgment may involve negation, in which we deny that a thing is or was, and so forth. The act of judgment differs from a simple apprehension in that the act of judgment involves knowing the thing we have apprehended in terms of affirming or denying its existence.
The third act of reason, reasoning, is that act whereby the mind proceeds from known truth to new truth. The new truth will be distinct from the previously known truth, but the latter is implied in the former. However, reasoning involves not only logical movement from premises to conclusion. Reasoning may also involve a movement from question to answer. For example, one might inquire of a trusted colleague concerning the state of affairs in a foreign country. On the basis of trust in the person's honesty, we can gain new knowledge by moving from inquiry to response. Also, reasoning may be a movement from rhetoric to persuasion. On the basis of authoritative testimony and the persuasive presentation of evidence we might move from the knowledge of the existence of particles and waves to accepting the new knowledge of the nature of light. Any progress of the mind from knowledge possessed to knowledge gained is an act of reasoning, and the act of reasoning may involve more than the strictly logical relations of premises to conclusions.
Objects of reason. The objects of reason are whatever the mind can know by reason. The objects of reason correspond to the three acts of reason. Any object of reason can be grasped, understood either to be or not to be, and demonstrated, without any assumptions based on faith in divine revelation, to be true or false. Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli have made a helpful chart delineating these acts of reason and their relation to faith.' This chart is represented in table I.I.
Table 1.1
Concerning the objects of reason corresponding to the first act of reason, simple apprehension, by human reason alone and without any relation to divine revelation, we can apprehend what a star is. This is not something that is revealed in Scripture but is apprehended by the mind. By human reasoning accompanied by faith in divine revelation, we can apprehend that the universe is well ordered and why it is so ordered. That the universe is well ordered is something we can discover and judge to be true by rational investigation. However, this is also something that is revealed in Scripture, and we can accept it by faith. By divine revelation we can apprehend what God's plan is for our salvation. This is not something that we can apprehend by observing the world, but only by hearing the Word of God (Rom 10:17).
Concerning the objects of reason corresponding to the second act of reason, judgment, by human reason alone and without any relation to divine revelation, we can judge that the universe of stars exists. By human reason accompanied by faith in divine revelation, we can judge that Jesus actually existed in space-time history. Now the fact that Jesus existed as a human is something that we can discover by historical investigation. But it is also something that is revealed in Scripture. By divine revelation, we can know how much God loves us. We cannot judge that God loves us by simply observing the universe. We must come to know this through divine revelation.
Concerning the objects of reason corresponding to the third act of the mind, reasoning, we can, by human reason alone and without any relation to divine revelation, discover and demonstrate the truth of the Pythagorean theorem. This is not something revealed in Scripture. By human reason accompanied by faith in divine revelation, we can demonstrate that the universe was created. This is something we can demonstrate by philosophical arguments, but it is also something that is revealed in Scripture. So, we can accept it as a conclusion of reasoning, or we can accept it by faith as a truth revealed in Scripture. By divine revelation, we can accept the truth that God is a Trinity. However, we cannot prove this by philosophical reasoning. We can demonstrate that it is not an irrational belief, but we cannot comprehend it or prove it, nor could we have apprehended it apart from divine revelation. We have come to know it through divine revelation, and we must accept it by faith.
WHAT Is FAITH?
Definition of faith. Faith is a personal trust in someone or something. Saving faith is a personal trust in God, who is true to his Word. In the book of Romans, Abraham is presented as an example of saving faith (Rom 4:1-5). Abraham believed God when, in Genesis 15, God promised that Abraham would have an heir from his own loins and that God would give to him all the land that he surveyed. Genesis 15:6 (NASB) says, "Then he believed in the Loan; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness." The basic idea of the assertion in Genesis 15:6, "he believed in," is the idea of certainty and firmness, holding something to be certain. Abraham accepted God's word as a promise that would certainly be fulfilled. Abraham trusted God to give him a son and the land. Faith is not an amorphous wish or hopeful desire for something that one is not certain will be realized. Faith is a firm certainty grounded in the faith fulness of God and a certain expectation of the fulfillment of all of the promises which God has made to those who would trust him.
As was observed above, sometimes people will argue that faith is contrary to reason-the notion of believing in something in spite of reason. But this is not accurate. Faith is not contrary to reason or irrational. In fact, trusting in God is eminently reasonable. God has demonstrated his faithfulness and trustworthiness again and again. Even in those times when it seems that the promises of God will not be fulfilled, it would in fact be unreasonable not to believe in God. Faith is trusting God to do what he says he will do. Faith is a personal trust.
Act offaith. We must distinguish between the act of faith and the object of faith. Faith is more than simply believing something to be true. Kreeft and Tacelli present four helpful aspects of faith that we will sum- marize.2 First of all there is the emotional aspect of faith. This involves the feeling of assurance, trust or confidence in a person. The emotional aspect of faith is characterized in the Bible as hope, but this is not simply wishful thinking. Rather, hope in this sense is the confident expectation of ultimately receiving that which has been promised.
The intellectual aspect of faith is belief. The intellectual aspect of faith is the stable and unchanging commitment that is grounded in truth. This is perhaps what people are talking about when they say they believe in spite of reason. Often, the circumstances of life may influence us to question the truth of God's Word. The intellectual aspect of faith, however, is not grounded in the appearances of the moment but in the truths about God and reality. Although I may not feel strong in faith, my mind can remain committed to trusting in God because of what I know to be true about him. This is not mere opinion but is a firm commitment of trust in God based on who he is.
The volitional aspect of faith is the act of the will by which I make a commitment to live, think and act on the basis of God's Word. The volitional aspect of faith is often characterized as faithfulness. It is realized in one's life and actions. Not only do I have a feeling of assurance, not only do I have a firm commitment to the truth about God, but also I act on that belief. My choices, values, pursuits and goals are based on that to which I am committed.
The act of faith is more than simply accepting something to be the case. The act of faith in the biblical sense involves the whole person, emotions, intellect, will and heart, in a total commitment of trust in another. This is what distinguished Joshua and Caleb from the rest of Israel. "Joshua the son of Nun and Caleb the son of Jephunneh, of those who had spied out the land, tore their clothes; and they spoke to all the congregation of the sons of Israel, saying, The land which we passed through to spy out is an exceedingly good land. If the LORD is pleased with us, then He will bring us into this land, and give it to us-a land which flows with milk and honey. Only do not rebel against the LORD; and do not fear the people of the land, for they will be our prey. Their protection has been removed from them, and the Lord is with us; do not fear them'" (Num 14:6-9 NASB). Without fear, Joshua and Caleb trusted God and were willing, based on their trust in God, to enter the land and take it from the inhabitants, because they trusted God when he said, "I will be with you" (Deut 31:23 NASB).
Object of faith. The object of faith is the person or the thing in which one trusts. This includes not only the person of God but the words of God as well. The words of God include all that we hold to be taught by the Word of God, including the doctrines that the Bible teaches. In other words, the object of our faith is not only God but everything he has revealed in the Bible. But what is revealed in the Bible are truths that can be expressed in propositions. The Bible teaches that there are certain things that we should believe. For example, the Bible teaches that the God of Israel is the only true and living God: "Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me" (Is 46:9 NAsti). But the statement "I am God" is a proposition that is presented to the person as something to be accepted as true and believed.
However, the propositions themselves are not the ultimate objects of faith. Rather, they are the proximate objects of faith. The ultimate object of faith is God, whose nature insures the truthfulness of the propositions he asserts. Simply to accept that a proposition is true is not the same as trusting in the one who makes the assertion. One must not only believe the truth of the propositions, but one must actually trust in him who is the Author and Guarantor of the truth of these propositions. In Numbers 14, Israel knew (believed) God was able to bring them into the land, but they did not trust him to do it for them.
THREE VIEWS ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FAITH AND REASON
Faith absent reason. One view on the relationship between faith and reason that we believe is an inadequate view has already been examined. It is the view that matters of faith are private and matters of reason are public. It is probably the most common view that people have about such matters. We have argued that when it comes to the Christian faith, while there are indeed aspects that are private, the claims that Christianity makes are claims about reality and as such are objective claims. Christianity claims that there is a God who is the Creator and Sustainer of the entire universe and to whom every person will have to give an account one day. Christianity claims that Jesus Christ lived a life of miracles, was crucified and rose from the dead. These claims are such that they can be investigated philosophically, scientifically and historically. These claims are such that philosophical, scientific and historical evidence can be marshaled to support them. These claims are such that they can he reasoned about. We see that this is the case not only because of the nature of the claims themselves but also because that is what the Bible says about them and that is how the apostles treated them.
Faith against reason. Another view of the relationship between faith and reason that we believe is inadequate has shown itself at various times throughout church history, namely, the claim that reason is useless in spiritual matters. Fideism (from Latin, fides, meaning "faith") asserts that a person cannot reason about matters of faith. You must simply believe. There is perhaps no better example of this kind of perspective than that proposed by Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855). Kierkegaard is popularly held to be the father of modern existentialism. For several reasons, he asserted that the human mind was unable to discover any divine truth. The reason that is most relevant here is that Kierkegaard claimed that though human reason could he used to iden tify and reject the absurd or irrational, it could not make any positive advance toward attaining divine truth. For Kierkegaard, God was so utterly transcendent, "wholly other," that truths about God equally transcend the capacities of human reason. Consequently there is no way for the human mind to know any truth about God by the exercise of human reason.
However, the Bible declares that we must believe in the right things, not in the wrong things. If fideism is true, then how can we know what to believe in and what not to believe in? In fact, why should we accept fideism? If fideism offers no reasons why we should accept it, then there is no reason to accept fideism over some other system. But if fideism offers any reasons why we should accept fideism, then it is using reason to say that we should not use reason, which is self-defeating. It uses reason to make statements about divine truth and spiritual matters. Though there are many things about God that are beyond our capacity to reason about, there are many things about God that are within the grasp of our reason, like the reasons the Bible gives for trusting God for our salvation. In fact, Jesus commanded us to love God with our whole mind: "`Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?' And [Jesus] said to him, `You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind"' (Mt 22:36-37 NASU).
Faith and reason. We believe that there is a better way to understand the relationship between faith and reason. Various aspects of our view have been touched on throughout this essay. It would be helpful at this point to pull these various aspects together and fill them out into a fuller picture. Our contention is that the best way to understand the relationship between faith and reason is to see that each has its proper role to play and that faith and reason complement each other in their respective roles. Let us put the pieces together regarding each of them.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FAITH AND REASON: PUTTING THE PIECES TOGETHER
The role of reason. You may ask yourself why there is a need at all for reasoning with someone about the Christian faith. After all, if it is the case that one can come to faith in Christ only by the work of the Holy Spirit, then what place does reason play? We think that there are a number of good reasons why a Christian can and should give evidence for his faith in Christ. First, the Bible is clear about the mandate to give reasons. First Peter 3:15 (NASB) says, "But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence." The word translated "defense" is apologia, from which we get the word apologetics. Another verse that commands us to defend the faith is Jude 3 (NASu), which says, "Beloved, while I was making every effort to write to you about our common salvation, I found the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints."
Second, not only does the Bible say that we should give reasons, but as the other chapters in this book will show, there is every reason to give reasons because the reasons are there. The evidence is strong for defending the faith. Since Christianity is rooted in history and is corroborated by science and philosophy, Christians have at their disposal ample evidence for its truthfulness.
While it is the Holy Spirit who enables someone to believe, he may sometimes use the presentation of evidence for the Christian faith as the means whereby someone can come to see the truth of the gospel. There is no conflict between the work of the Holy Spirit and the use of evidence and reason. The evidence and reason as such were never intended to supplant the work of God's Spirit but rather are intended to be the means by which the Holy Spirit brings someone to faith in Christ.
WHAT EVIDENCE CAN Do
As anticipated in the last discussion, we can see that evidence can answer honest intellectual questions. Throughout the history of the church as the gospel has spread around the world, many who have been confronted with the claims of Christ have had honest questions, if not objections, about what we are presenting. The marshaling of evidence and the use of reason enable Christians to give honest answers to these questions and responses to these objections.
Second, evidence can expose dishonest intellectual questions as spiritual problems. In John 10:24-28 (NASB) we discover that the recalcitrance of some of the Jews was not due to any lack of evidence or information but rather was due to their darkened hearts.
The Jews then gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, "How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly." Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me. But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."
A third thing that evidence can do is build up the faith of the believer. Take a look at what Acts 18:24-28 (NASB) says about Apollos and how he "greatly helped" those who believed:
Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. And when he wanted to go across to Achaia, the brethren encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him; and when he had arrived, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace, for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.
THE ROLE OF FAITH
Reason prior to faith. Reason precedes faith in that it is able to demonstrate the preambles of faith, such as God's existence, the reliability of the Bible and that the Word of God is trustworthy. But reason does not produce faith. As Norman Geisler puts it, "Discursive thought, or reasoning from premises to conclusions, is not the cause of the assent of faith. Nonetheless, such reasoning `can accompany the assent of faith.' The reason they are parallel but one does not cause the other is that `faith involves will (freedom) and reason doesn't coerce the will.' That is, a person is free to dissent even though there may be convincing reasons to believe."' Remember, faith is a personal trust in someone or something. Faith in God is a personal trust in him. Even though there are convincing reasons to trust God, some will not, but it is precisely because they will not. In summary, table 1.2 illustrates the relation between faith and reason and the role of each.
Table 1.2
CONCLUSION
Ultimately there is an essential agreement between faith and reason. The very fact that we, as Christians, study the Bible and discuss it and that we seek to understand how the Bible applies to our lives shows that we attempt to understand (reason) what we believe (faith). Reason does not cause faith, but our faith is not unreasonable.
FOR FURTHER READING
Beckwith, Francis J., and Stephen Parrish. See the Gods Fall: FourRivals to Christianity. Joplin, Mo.: College Press, 1997.
Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. 2nd ed. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1994.
Geisler, Norman L. Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1976.
Thomas Aquinas: An Evangelical Appraisal. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1991.
Kreeft, Peter, and Ronald K. Tacelli. Handbook of Christian Apologetics: Hundreds of'Answers to Crucial Questions. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1994.
Moreland, J. P., and William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations, fbr a Christian Worldview. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2003.
THE APOSTLE PETER PROBABLY TOLD THE STORY ON MANY OCCASIONS AS HE preached his way to Rome in the decades that followed the earthly ministry of Jesus. Mark, a close companion of Peter during his journeys, recorded Peter's account of this event in the New Testament Gospel that bears Mark's name. The event to which I refer is the miraculous healing of a man who could not walk, probably paralyzed for many years if not from birth, recorded in Mark 2. There are many healing miracles recorded in the Scriptures, but this one has a special twist in that this miracle illustrates, in a dramatic fashion and early in the ministry of Jesus, a key method our Lord utilized in communicating and confirming the central points of his message.
JESUS AND THE ETHOS OF DEMONSTRATION
As Mark relates the story, Jesus had already garnered a large following that made it difficult for him to move around in populated areas. In Capernaum, Jesus began to teach in a local home, and a huge crowd quickly gathered so there was no room left even outside the door. Reports of Jesus' healing activities certainly added to the interest, and it is likely that many in attendance were anxious for a touch from this extraordinary rabbi. Four men in particular sought healing from Jesus, not for themselves but for their companion, who was unable to walk. They could not get though the crowd to Jesus inside so they climbed up on top of the structure, burrowed through the roof and lowered the "paralytic" down on his mat to Jesus in the room below.
Now comes the twist. When Jesus saw the paralytic and the faith of the men who had brought him, Jesus said, "Son, your sins are forgiven." Even the parallel passages recorded in Matthew and Luke do not tell us the reaction of the man on the mat, or those who brought him, to this unexpected statement by Jesus. All three Synoptic Gospels, however, record the reaction of some "teachers of the law" who were likely following Jesus around in order to scrutinize his teaching and activities. Indeed, the text implies that the looks on their faces may have told the whole story, because they clearly thought Jesus had crossed a very serious line with his utterance to the paralytic. In their view, Jesus had blasphemed. After all, who could forgive sins but God alone?
Jesus' response to the "teachers of the law" is the climax of this passage. Peter, who was likely an eyewitness and the source of Mark's account, prohahly knew enough about the religious law of his clay to sense that a conflict was looming. Ironically, and certainly the reason that this incident stayed so prominently in Peter's mind, Jesus did not dispute the thinking of the teachers of the law on the point that God alone could forgive sins-simply because the point was a valid one. Instead, Jesus replied, "that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins, get up, take your mat and go home" (Mk 2:10). The man got up in full view of the throng that had gathered and walked out leaving everyone amazed.
I suppose any religious teacher could have wandered into Capernaum and made spiritual statements such as `'your sins are forgiven" and convinced at least a few people to believe that a real activity in the unseen, spiritual world had taken place. But Jesus' goal on this occasion and on many that followed (e.g., Mt 11:2-5; Lk 7:18-23; Jn 3:2; 5:31-36; 10:38; 15:24-25) was to help those in attendance have good reason to "know" that he had authority from God and, by implication in the case of the paralytic, that he was the divine Son of God. Jesus provided reasons to believe through many different means, the most dramatic of which were miracles done in public as authentication of his message, identity and authority. Of course Jesus' prediction of his death and resurrection (Mt 12:39-40; Lk 11:29-30; Jn 2:18-22; etc.), which he overtly labeled "the sign" to a wicked generation, took this to the highest level. New Testament scholar R. V. G. Tasker called the sign of the resurrection spoken of by Jesus "the supreme sign, which would be the Father's unmistakable vindication of his Son."'
It is very important to understand that in justifying the task of Christian apologetics throughout the history of the church, it was Jesus himself who set the stage. He did this not by writing apologetic tracts and treatises but by creating what I shall call here an "ethos of demonstration" among his followers. Jesus demonstrated the truth of his message and his identity over and over again using nearly every method at his disposal, including miracle, prophecy, godly style of life, authoritative teaching and reasoned argumentation. And although Jesus clearly authorized the apologetic ethos for his followers by living it out himself, it is also important to note that he did not create this approach ex nihilo during his three years of ministry. Indeed, Jesus was really just reaffirming an ages-old ethos of demonstration that had been well established in the Old Testament tradition. From the miracles of Moses in Pharaoh's court (Ex 7) to Elijah's contest with the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18) to God himself calling for his opponents to "present your case ... set forth your arguments" (Is 41:21), a divine pattern was already fixed by the time Jesus came on the scene.
THE APOSTLES AND THE EARLY CHURCH
Perhaps there is no stronger argument that Jesus himself was an extraordinary source for the apologetic impulse in Christianity than the fact that his closest followers, those who so deeply desired to emulate their Master, were such ardent proponents of Jesus' ethos of demonstration. In deed, Paul, John and Peter seemed almost obsessed with offering evidence, testimony and argument at every turn in order to establish the truth of the gospel message. The case for the apostolic support for the full range of apologetic activity is very well known and has been affirmed by scores of preeminent Christian scholars in the last fifty years.3 Anyone wishing to downplay the significance of the defense of the faith to the apostles and the early church is truly swimming upstream against an overwhelming current. Since it has been so well covered, I shall choose only a few of the most compelling examples to highlight.
Peter, who along with James and John was a member of the inner circle of Christ's apostles, was greatly influenced by the apologetic thrust of Jesus' ministry and offers a direct command for all believers likewise to follow this model. In what remains today as a touchstone verse for those with a calling to defend the faith, Peter wrote, "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" (1 Pet 3:15). Jude, who was likely the brother of Jesus, also gives a very straightforward command to his brothers and sisters in the Way to defend the faith against false teachers. "I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3). The apostle Paul makes it clear that anyone who is to be considered for eldership in the church should be proficient in arguing against those who hold false doctrine. Paul wrote that an elder "must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it" (Tit 1:9).4
Even if Christ's closest followers had not given direct commands to engage in apologetic activities, they modeled these activities so frequently and unmistakably in Scripture that their actions amount to a clear exhortation for all Christians to go and do likewise. The Gospel writers themselves were carefully attuned to this. Luke, for instance, had explicit apologetic purposes in the construction of his Gospel-a special focus that he lays out in the prologue to his book. Here he highlights the importance of eyewitness testimony, careful investigation and accurate reporting all with an eye toward helping his reader, Theophilus, to know "the certainty" of the things he had been taught (Lk 1:1-4). Luke's book of Acts begins by mentioning the "many convincing proofs" Jesus had given his followers to confirm the truth of the resurrection (Acts 1:3). Jesus was therefore portrayed as the first among many in Acts who would offer reasons for belief at every opportunity. Later in Acts, Luke focuses in on the apostle Paul and describes a key modus operandi of Paul for his missionary activity in his travels throughout the Mediterranean world as reasoning, proving and persuading on behalf of the truth of the gospel. Luke describes Paul's regular method in Acts 17:2-4, as well as the result. As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ,' he said. Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did large numbers of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women."In addition to confirming that it was his "custom," Luke gives direct accounts of Paul reasoning and persuading in Thessalonica (Acts 17:2), Athens (Acts 17:17), Corinth (Acts 18:4) and Ephesus (Acts 19:8). Indeed, in Ephesus Paul not only "had discussions" daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus but was also a vehicle for God's "extraordinary miracles" among the people (Acts 19:11). For the apostles, as for Jesus, there was no ultimate line of demarcation between miracles and reasoning in that both were powerful tools in the hands of the Holy Spirit to persuade and lead humanity to salvation in Christ. Jesus' ethos of demonstration was thriving among the New Testament figures and set in place a tradition of defending the faith that would be carried on by the church fathers in the centuries immediately following the founding of Christianity.'
OBJECTIONS TO APOLOGETIC ENGAGEMENT AND RESPONSES
Because of the steady encroachment of secular culture onto the church's turf and the tremendous increase in the felt need by evangelicals for responses to the intellectual issues that challenge the gospel and the Christian view of the world, objections by Christians to apologetic activity seem to be raised far less frequently. There are still objections, but it is my experience that even these seem to be formulated somewhat differently from those in the recent .6 I shall offer responses to four objections to apologetic engagement that I have heard most often in recent years. I will present the objections I have heard in the same language with which I normally encounter them at public events.
I've never seen anybody come to faith in Christ through apologetics. Of course one would immediately wonder why the apostle Paul was so enamored of reasoning, proving and persuading if these methods were desperately ineffective, or why Peter and Jude would command the practice of giving reasons for faith. Indeed, in the passage from Acts 17:2-4 quoted above, Paul's explaining, proving and persuading is directly associated with "large numbers" of converts and undoubtedly played a role. People always come to Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit, but there are many tools the Holy Spirit uses to do his work. One of those tools is apologetic reasoning. There are many who give serious personal testimonies to the value of apologetics in assisting their movement toward salvation-Augustine of Hippo and C. S. Lewis, to name two easily recognizable and influential figures. Occasionally apologetics is the primary tool that brings people to the foot of the cross. This would be true of my own conversion and of many I've shared the gospel with over the years. Other times apologetics plays a secondary or tertiary role, helping to make the gospel message more plausible in a world that has serious doubts about its veracity. However, given the explicit commands and clear examples in Scripture to offer reasons for faith, I would guess that those who offer this objection have either rarely tried robust but gentle apologetic engagement or perhaps are not "prepared" in the way that the apostle Peter exhorted us to be (1 Pet 3:15).
But without faith it is impossible to please God. This objection derives from a common misinterpretation of Hebrews 11:6: "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." The misunderstanding of this verse is based on a weak notion of the word faith. The only way this verse can be a problem for the task of apologetics is if one equates saving faith with "blind faith"-some- thing that is illegitimate but done far too often by Christians today. Christian faith is not "blind faith," that is, it is not opposed to reason, evidence, logic or knowledge. In fact, the apostle Paul allows no room for blind faith in a very provocative passage in 1 Corinthians. Paul wrote that if Christ did not rise from the dead, our faith is useless and futile (1 Cor 15:12-19). Here he locks together the resurrection of Christ, a knowable historical event-the truth of which can be determined through evidence and reason-with saving faith. He had a marvelous opportunity in this passage to decouple reason and faith. He could have encouraged us to have faith no matter what the evidence showed. But he did exactly the opposite. Paul confirmed that if we have no valid resurrection, then we have no valid faith. Christian faith is not blind in the least; rather it is dependent upon a historical event that can be thoroughly investigated with eyes wide open. A good synonym for genuine faith in the Christian tradition is simply "trust," and we can certainly trust that which we can know to be true-indeed, it is the wise thing to do. Our trust or faith is stronger when we have excellent reason to believe in whom we are trusting.
Just preach the Word because it will not return void. The Bible verse from which this objection is derived (Is 55:11) does not contain the word just. But it is the word just that really creates the problem because it implies that nothing else is ever needed in order to have the Word of God begin its regenerative work in the unbeliever. But Jesus and his apostles demonstrated to us that other elements could act as a catalyst for the gospel. As I showed earlier, miracle, prophecy, godly style of life and reasoned argumentation were all employed to authenticate their message with great effect. And once again the commands of Peter and Jude to defend the faith do not make sense if the only tool permissible is direct gospel proclamation.
Let me look at this from another angle for a moment because this objection actually made a lot more sense in previous generations. In years past it was not unusual that a believer could quote the Bible or "preach the Word" and have a good chance of engendering respect and perhaps deep reflection on the part of the unbeliever. This was possible because the Bible still carried significant cultural authority. An unbeliever would be likely to consider its words because there was a widespread recognition that the Bible was at the foundation of western civilization and brought wise counsel on many issues-even if the whole text was not considered true or without error by the skeptical recipient. Those days, however, are gone. There is a better than ever chance today that a person will actually consider you immoral for quoting the Bible because the Bible is often viewed, inappropriately of course, as misogynist, racist, violent, religiously exclusive and the basis for much of the conflict in our world. Clearly, the Scriptures are still "living and active" and "sharper than any double-edged sword" (Heb 6:12) and able to make us "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim 3:15). However, the armor that the opposition is wearing may need to be lowered for the sword to penetrate. A robust defense of Scripture as the Word of God-a pillar of modern apologetic work-can be used by the Holy Spirit to do this and is needed now more than ever.
What really matters is that you love Jesus and are willing to be used. It is difficult to argue with this sentiment, because there is so much truth in it. After all, if we do not put loving Jesus first and are not willing to be used, we are way out of touch with Christianity and are in serious need of discipleship. However, on close inspection this objection, like the one just before it, is problematic in that it is in principle excluding as unimportant a whole area of God-ordained activity. Putting this objection in a slightly different way, loving Jesus is where our focus should be and not on ivory-tower dialogue. Of course, once again we run into the problem of the commands and examples of Jesus and his followers. If they valued reasoned argumentation on behalf of the gospel, then so should we. Moreover, since loving Jesus entails obedience to him and to the commands of his inspired apostles, then engaging in apologetic activity would certainly be a mark of obedience and therefore consistent with loving Jesus.
When I hear this objection to apologetic activity I can't help but think there is something lying beneath it something not stated clearly or completely forthrightly. I shall conclude with a brief word about this underlying issue. As one can quickly tell, the popular objections that I have addressed here are not particularly precise or persuasive. Very often when Christians dispute the validity of defending the faith, they may not be reacting to the legitimacy of the apologetic task but rather to their negative experiences with some who take up the apologetic task. This has been at times a serious problem with the effectiveness of our overall Christian witness. Apologists are sometimes out to win arguments and not souls, impatient with illogic from their counterparts, and arrogant in their demeanor. I am convinced that this can strip even the brightest apologists of their effectiveness for the Lord. Indeed, the "ethos of demonstration" that I identified in the daily ministry of Christ and his apostles included living out the second greatest commandment, to "love your neighbor as yourself" (Mt 22:39). The most effective apologist is not one who has the greatest academic prowess alone, but the one who has excellent intellectual preparation and reflects Christ's love in every way. When Peter penned his great apologetics command (1 Pet 3:15), he was compelled to attach a qualifier that captures this notion: "Burt do this with gentleness and respect." Paul likewise confirmed this when he explained to Timothy that "the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim 2:24-25).'
Christians who are able to bring it all together-a bright mind, comprehensive intellectual preparation for the proclamation and defense of the faith, the deepest devotion to and emulation of our Lord, and an unflinching commitment to the Great Commission-are instruments of great power in the hands of the Holy Spirit for furthering the kingdom. It should be our goal to raise up apologists such as these. I am convinced that even in small numbers they will foment a spiritual revolution in a world that is so thirsty for knowledge of the truth.
FOR FURTHER READING
Boa, Kenneth D., and Robert M. Bowman Jr. Faith Has Its Reasons. An Integrative Approach to Defending Christianity. Colorado Springs, Colo.: NavPress, 2001.
Bruce, F. F. The Defense of the Gospel in the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1959.
Lewis, Gordon R. Testing Christianity's Truth Claims: Approaches to Christian Apologetics. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1990.
Mayers, Ronald B. Balanced Apologetics: Using Evidences and Presuppositions in Defense of the Faith. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel, 1984.
Sproul, R. C., John Gerstner and Arthur Lindsley. Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of 'the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1984.
Stackhouse, John G., Jr. Humble Apologetics: Defending the Faith Today. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
APOLOGETICS HAS A QUESTIONABLE REPUTATION AMONG NONAFICIONADOS. By definition apologists "defend" the faith. They defeat false ideas. They destroy speculations raised up against the knowledge of God.
Those sound like fightin' words to many people: Circle the wagons. Hoist the drawbridge. Fix bayonets. Load weapons. Ready, aim, fire. It's not surprising, then, that believers and unbelievers alike associate apologetics with conflict. Defenders don't dialogue. They fight.
In addition to the image problem, apologists face another barrier. The truth is that effective apologetics in the twenty-first century requires more than having the right answers. It's too easy for postmoderns to ignore our facts, deny our claims or simply yawn and walk away from the line we've drawn in the sand.
But sometimes they don't walk away. They think they know a few things, so they stand and fight. We wade into battle only to face a barrage we can't handle. We've ignored one of the first rules of engagement: never make a frontal assault on a superior force. Caught off balance, we tuck our tails between our legs and retreat, maybe for good.
I'd like to suggest a "more excellent way." Jesus said that when you find yourself a sheep amid wolves, be innocent but be shrewd (Mt 10:16). This calls for a tactical approach. Even though there is real warfare going on (note Paul's comments in Eph 6:10-20), our engagements should look more like diplomacy than combat.
Think of it this way. There are two critical elements of any encounter: strategy and tactics. Strategy involves the big picture, one's positioning prior to actual engagement. In our case, Christianity is well positioned (we have strategic superiority, in a sense) because we have superior ideas: the best answers to life's most important questions.
Tactics involve the actual details of engagement, literally "the art of arranging"-maneuvering in the face of an enemy, deploying assets, putting them into action to gain an advantage. Often a clever commander has the advantage over a superior opponent through deft tactical maneuvering.
This is where we must give our attention. We must learn to artfully manage the details of dialogue. This does not mean using tricks or slick ruses but finding clever ways to exploit another's bad thinking for the purpose of guiding him to truth.
TAKE A TIP FROM COLUMBO
There are many ways to accomplish this,' but my favorite is what I call the "Columbo tactic." It's the simplest device imaginable to stop a challenger in his tracks, turn the tables and get him thinking. It's an almost effortless way to put you in the driver's seat.
This tactic is typified by Lieutenant Columbo, the bumbling and seemingly inept TV detective whose remarkable success was based on an innocent query: "Do you mind if I ask you a question?"
The key to Columbo is to go on the offensive by advancing the conversation-and eventually dismantling another person's viewpoint with carefully selected questions which move the discussion along in an interactive way. The tactic is best played out Columbo style-halting, head-scratching and apparently harmless.
Simply put, instead of making assertions, ask questions. If you hit a roadblock when witnessing, ask a good question. With practice this can become second nature, especially if you plan questions in advance.
Hugh Hewitt, a secular radio talk show host who is also a superb Christian ambassador, is a master of this technique. He advises asking at least a half-dozen questions in every conversation.
There are literally hundreds of fun ways to do this, and it offers tremendous advantages. For one, questions are interactive by nature, inviting others to participate in dialogue. They are also neutral; no "preaching" is involved. The Columbo tactic allows you to make good headway without actually stating your case. More importantly, a carefully placed question shifts the burden of proof to the other person where it often belongs.
"WHAT Do You MEAN BY THAT?"
Sometimes you need more information to know how to proceed, so your initial probe will be open-ended. The most effective question you can ask in most circumstances is a clarification question, some variation of "What do you mean by that?" It's delivered in a mild, genuinely in quisitive fashion. It's a natural opening with absolutely no pressure. For example, when they say ...
"There is no God," you ask, "What do you mean by `God'?"
"Reincarnation was taken out of the Bible," you ask, "What do you mean it `was taken out'?"
"All religions are basically the same," you ask, "Really? In what way?"
"You shouldn't force your views on me," you ask, "Specifically, how am I forcing my views on you?"
"The Bible has been changed over the years," you ask, "How exactly do you think it's been altered?"
"It's only your interpretation," you ask, "What exactly do you mean by only my `interpretation'?"
Questions like these accomplish a few important things. First, they immediately engage the other person in an interactive way. Second, they're flattering because questions show that you are genuinely interested in another's view. Third, they force her to think more carefully-maybe for the first time-about exactly what she does mean. Finally, questioning uncovers valuable information, revealing precisely what she thinks so you don't misunderstand or misrepresent her.
Be sure to pay attention to the response. If it's unclear, follow up with more questions. Say, "Let me see if I understand you on this," then feed back the view to make sure you got it right.
Once while on vacation in Wisconsin, the woman helping my wife and me at the one-hour photo had a large pentagram-a five-pointed star generally associated with the occult-dangling from her neck.
"Does that have religious significance," I asked, "or is it just jewelry?"
"It has religious significance," she answered. "The five points stand for earth, wind, fire, water and spirit. I'm a pagan."
My wife, unaware that "pagan" referred to Wicca (witchcraft) and earth worship, laughed in amazement at what seemed like a remarkably candid confession. "I've never heard anyone actually admit right out they were pagan," she explained. She knew the term only as a pejorative, used by girlfriends yelling at their kids: "Get in here, you bunch of pagans."
"It's an earth religion," the woman explained, "like the Native Americans."
"So you're Wiccan?" I continued. She nodded. This led to a productive conversation made possible by noticing a piece of jewelry and asking a very simple question, a variation of "What do you mean by that?"
How DID YOU COME TO THAT CONCLUSION?
The first Columbo question helps you know more precisely what another person thinks. Next, you want to know why he thinks that way. That takes a second question: "How did you come to that conclusion?"
An alternate might be, "Why do you say that?" or "What are your reasons for saying that?" These questions charitably assume that the nonChristian has actually thought through the issue carefully instead of just making an assertion or expressing feelings.
This question accomplishes something else vitally important. It forces your opponent to give an account for his own beliefs. The responsibility to defend or give evidence for a view is called "burden of proof." The basic rule governing this responsibility is: the one who makes the claim bears the burden.
Christians should not be the only ones who have to defend what they believe. In the immortal words of Ricky Ricardo, the other side has "a lot of splainin' to do" themselves. Reject the impulse to counter every assertion someone manufactures. Don't try to refute every tale spun out of thin air. It's not your job to answer his claim. It's his job to defend it.
For example, I was once on the top-rated secular talk radio show in Los Angeles making a case for intelligent design over evolution. When a caller used the big bang theory to argue against a Creator, I said the big bang worked in my favor. It seemed to me, I told him, that a big bang needs a Big Banger.
The caller disagreed. The big bang doesn't need God, he claimed. Then leading off with the phrase "One could say," he spun a lengthy science-fiction tale for the audience on how everything came from nothing.
"You're right," I responded. " `One could say' anything he wants. But giving good reasons why we should believe the story you just told is another thing altogether."
It wasn't my job to disprove his fairy tale. He bore the burden of proof for his own claim. It was his job to demonstrate why anyone should take his something-from-nothing musings seriously.
THE PROFESSOR'S PLOY
The Columbo tactic is a good one to use in the classroom. Some professors are fond of taking potshots at Christianity with remarks like "The Bible is just a bunch of fables." Well-meaning believers sometimes take up the challenge and attempt a head-to-head duel with the professor. This rarely works.
There is another rule of engagement that governs exchanges like these: the person with the microphone wins. The professor always has the strategic advantage. It's foolish to get into a power struggle when you're outgunned. There's a better way. Use your tactics.
Simply ask your Columbo questions: "Professor, what do you mean by that? How did you come to that conclusion?" Make him shoulder the burden of proof. After all, he's the teacher, and he's the one making the claim. With this approach you are able to stay engaged while deftly sidestepping the power struggle.
At this point the professor may sense your maneuver and respond, "Oh, you must be one of those fundamentalists who thinks the Bible is inspired by God. Okay, I'm a fair man. Why don't you take a few minutes and prove that to the rest of the class?"
What has he done? In one quick move he's cleverly switched the burden of proof back on you, the student.
If you find yourself facing the challenge "Why don't you try to prove me wrong?" don't take the bait. Falling into this trap is fatal. Instead, shift the burden back where it belongs, on the professor. After all, he made the claim.
Respond this way. "Professor, I haven't said anything about my own view, so you don't know what it is. More to the point, its irrelevant. It doesn't matter what I believe. Your view is the issue, not mine. I'm just a student. I'm here to learn. You've made a strong claim. I simply want clarification and reasons."
If he gives you an answer, thank him for explaining himself and either ask another question or let it go for the time being.
Don't miss this point: Christians don't have to he experts in everything. If we keep the burden on the other side when they're making the claim, we don't have to have all the answers. In fact, we can be effective even when we know very little if we ask the right questions.
When someone says to you, "The Bible's been changed so many times," or "No one can know the truth about religion," or "All religions are basically the same," don't retreat in silence. Instead, simply raise your eyebrows and say, "Oh? What do you mean by that?" and "How did you come to that conclusion?" Everyone in the discussion has a point of view. There's no reason to let the other side have a free ride.
Don't allow yourself to he thrust into a defensive posture when others are making the claim. Remember, they are the ones who bear the burden of proof. Why let them ignore her responsibility?
For far too long non-Christians have contrived fanciful challenges, then sat back and watched us squirm, and we've let it happen. Others must defend their own unbelief. If they make the claim, it's not our job to refute it; its their job to answer for it. The simple question "How did you come to that conclusion?" puts the responsibility right where it belongs. The pressure is on them, not you.
HAVE You EVER CONSIDERED ... ?
The information you gather with the first two questions puts you in a better position to move to the final stage of Columbo. Now that you know both what the other person believes and why he believes it, you can move on to questions that challenge his ideas.
This step is more demanding because it requires some insight into what has gone wrong; you have to be able to see the flaw. The key is to pay close attention to the reasons. Look, observe, reflect. Ask yourself if the conclusion follows from the evidence. What are the weaknesses of the view? Is there a misstep, a non sequitur, a fallacy or a failing of some sort? If so, how can it be exposed with a question instead of a statement?
It's not always easy to flush out the error, so don't be surprised if you find yourself stalled out. This takes a little practice, but with time you'll improve.
You may find that in some conversations you don't have the resources to go further. Or you'll sense the person you're talking to is losing interest. If so, don't feel compelled to force the conversation; let the encounter die a natural death. Consider it a fruitful, interactive learning experience nonetheless. You don't have to hit home runs. Sometimes just getting up to bat will do, and the first two questions accomplish that.
In the process of conversation you may be alerted to some weakness, flaw or contradiction that can be exposed and exploited. There's no special formula for acting on your discovery. When you see something wrong, point it out with a question rather than a statement.
For example, when they say ...
"The fetus may be a human being, but it's not a person," you ask, "What's the difference?"
"You shouldn't push your morality on me," you ask, "Why not?" (It's going to be very hard for them to answer this without them pushing their morality on you.)
"How can God exist when there's so much evil in the world?" you ask, "But if there is no God, how can we call anything evil in the first place?"
Your approach can be softened a bit by using your question to suggest an alternative. Ask, "Have you ever considered," then offer a different view that gently challenges his beliefs or confronts the weakness of his argument. For example, have you ever considered ...
the difficulty of removing something like teaching on reincarnation from every existing handwritten copy of the New Testament in circulation in the Roman world by the fourth century?
that the existence of evil is actually evidence for the existence of God, not against it?'
that if the Bible were "merely written by men" it would be very hard to account for fulfilled prophecy?
that if partial-birth abortion is morally acceptable, it's going to be hard to condemn infanticide, since the only difference between the two is the baby's location-partially out of the womb or completely out?
that if Jesus was wrong about being the only way of salvation, it becomes difficult to call him a good man, a prophet or a wise religious teacher?
Initially you will not be quick on your feet with responses like the ones above. Your best ideas will come afterward, when the pressure is off. Make note of them. Practice them out loud. Try to anticipate the rejoinder and what your counter will be. I have made this a regular habit, and it's paid off. Next time around, the new responses are right at my fingertips.
TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY AMBASSADORS
Defending the faith in the new millennium requires more than knowledge. It's not enough for followers of Christ to have accurately informed minds. They also need an artful method. They need to combine their knowledge with wisdom and diplomacy. They need the tools of an ambassador, not the weapons of a warrior, tactical skill, not brute force.
Asking simple, leading questions is an almost effortless way to accomplish balance. You can advance the dialogue and make capital of the conversation for spiritual ends without seeming abrupt, rude or pushy. Questions are engaging and interactive, probing yet amicable. Most important, they keep you in the driver's seat while someone else does all the work.
Most critics are not well-equipped to defend their own faith. They have rarely thought through what they believe and have relied more on generalizations and slogans than on careful reflection. To expose their error, take your cue from Columbo. Scratch your head, rub your chin, pause for a moment, then say, "Do you mind if I ask you a question?"
FOR FURTHER READING
Beckwith, Francis J., and Gregory P. Koukl. Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1998.
Koukl, Gregory P. Tactics in Defending the Faith. Compact disc. Available for purchase at <www.str.org>.
Hewitt, Hugh. In, But Not Of. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2003.
Kreeft, Peter. Between Heaven and Hell. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1982.
. Socrates Meets Jesus. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1987.
. The Unaborted Socrates. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1983.